Send me email updates about messages I've received on the site and the latest news from The CafeMom Team.
By signing up, you certify that you are female and accept the Terms of Service and have read the
Privacy Policy.

CREWS: Homosexuals in the military demand special privileges

Toleration doesnât cut both ways

The American armed forces exist to defend our nation, not to conduct
social science lab experiments in which our troops serve as human
subjects. Try telling that to this administration.

The first
anniversary of the repeal of âDonât Ask, Donât Tell,â Sept. 20, has come
and gone. Now, there is mounting evidence that proves our warnings were
not idle chatter. The threat to freedom posed by this radical sexual
experiment on our military is real: It is grave and it is growing.

Activists
inside and outside our government who pushed the repeal have deployed a
smoke screen around the fact that once the military was forced to exalt
homosexuality in the ranks, the all-too-foreseen consequence reared its
ugly head.

Senior military officials have allowed personnel in
favor of repeal to speak to media while those who have concerns have
been ordered to be silent. Two airmen were publicly harassed in a Post
Exchange food court as they were privately discussing their concerns
about the impact of repeal. A chaplain was encouraged by military
officials to resign his commission unless he could âget in line with the
new policy,â demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplainâs religious
viewpoint. Another chaplain was threatened with early retirement, and
then reassigned to be more âclosely supervisedâ because he had expressed
concerns with the policy change, again demonstrating no tolerance for
that chaplainâs religious viewpoint.

At an officer training
service school, a male serviceman sexually harassed another male
serviceman through text messages, emails, phone calls and in-person
confrontations. The harassing male insisted the two would âmake a great
couple.â The harassed serviceman reported the harassment, but the
command failed to take disciplinary action.

Service members
engaged in homosexual behavior protested a service schoolâs open-door
policy for all students that prohibited the closing of room doors for
the purpose of hiding sexual behavior. The protesters claimed that they
had a right to participate in sexual behavior with their same-sex
roommates.

A senior chaplain was stripped of his authority over
the chapel under his charge because, in accordance with federal law, he
proclaimed the chapel to be a âsacred spaceâ where marriage ceremonies
would only be between one man and one woman.

The Navy has allowed
sailors openly engaged in homosexual behavior to choose their bunkmates.
Imagine in this new age of âtoleranceâ if a sailor asked to be moved
from a close-quarters berthing area because of his concern about another
sailorâs sexual appetites. We already know what would happen, because
tolerance has never been a two-way street.

Obviously, the recent
âstudyâ (aka propaganda) claiming that the repeal went off without a
hitch should be shredded post-haste. It has no connection to reality.

This
is just the first wave in the first year of the assault on the
constitutionally protected freedom of our service members. Remember, the
groups that forced their sexual experiment on the armed forces
represent the lesbian, homosexual, bisexual and transgender community.
Itâs only a matter of time before a man who claims to be transgender
demands to be placed with women during training, in the showers and in
the barracks. The women in the units will have no recourse, especially
if their objection to living, changing, bathing and bunking with a man
is based on sincerely held religious beliefs. They would have two
choices: Either accept this outrageous imposition silently or be charged
with bigotry, hatred, intolerance and every other name the advocates of
this agenda can throw at them. Neither choice is acceptable. When
âsensitivity trainingâ is in full force, these women just might face
discipline and punitive separation merely for speaking up and requesting
a reasonable measure of privacy and protection of their religious
freedom.

This outrageous social science lab experiment could have
been easily prevented. The Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty has
worked closely with members of Congress to enact legislation, which has already passed the House, to protect freedom of conscience for chaplains and those they serve.

Even more outrageous is that we have to ask Congress to protect freedom of conscience for chaplains and those who serve in the military. The fact that Congress
excluded a religious freedom protection amendment (authored in
partnership with Alliance Defending Freedom), to the repeal sends a
clear message that our current leadership does not consider, much less
respect, the constitutional implications of their actions while they bow
in allegiance to the powerful and aggressive lobby of those who
supported the repeal.

Col. Ron Crews, a retired Army chaplain, is executive director for Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty.

My dh has a friend who is a base commander. He has a gay transvestite in his wing. The guy wanted to wear female uniforms, was denied..then threatened to sue. They just gave in to avoid the publicity. The guy is no longer deployable. IMO, if you aren't deployable..unless it is for a short term thing..you should be discharged.

We knew there would be lots of issues. No one was listening to those trying to resolve them before the repeal.

The US Military got suckered on that one, IMO. Instead of shooting yourself to avoid deployment, dress up like a woman. Sounds fishy, that is for sure...lol

They aren't being punished for their beliefs ir concerns, they're being punished for going against the military code.

Military members DO NOT have as many freedoms as regular civilians, especially in uniform.

Quoting gsprofval:

Isn't it amazing, but still discriminatory that homosexuals can be protected (and that's ok), but people who believe it is wrong are punished? That's discrimination in the highest form.

I've worked with a military chaplain and he was truly a man of God; he should be allowed to have his beliefs and not be forced to comply with same sex marriage if it goes against his religious beliefs.

lol no the story is complete and utter bullshit. A Base Commander doesn't have that kind-of power - they may have had some power back in the day but today there are too many checks and balances, one call to Army IG would stop any of the Bullshit in it's tracks. And frankly, if that is happening, I suggest someone call Army Jag or Army IG immediately and report the commander for improper behavior.

Quoting LauraKW:

Can you see someone in the military threatening their SO with a lawsuit for not allowing them to wear women's uniforms? It's just too ridiculous to believe. A base commander being too afraid of a LAWSUIT to keep his troops in line - I call Shenanigans.

Quoting mikiemom:

and I ask one of the JAG folks here at the pentagon that I see every day at Starbucks if wearing clothes of the opposite sex was protected now that it was ok to be gay in the military and he said absolutely not. This case has nothing to do with being gay and if the commander that this woman claims to know is not handling this correctly he could end up being in trouble.

Quoting LauraKW:

Transvestite does not equal gay. Not all transvestites are gay. Not all gays are transvestites. If dude wants to wear a female uniform it has nothing to do with being gay and everything to do with being a transvestite.

Quoting yourspecialkid:

Quoting mikiemom:

Nope, I don't believe this story, prove it. Wearing the wrong uniform is still not ok, he would still have to comply with uniform regulations for men. In addition, if you are not deployable for a psych or physical reason you are discharged from the military, he would get a general discharge that could be upgraded to an honorable in six months. I don't care if you believe me or not. I'm not going to say anything else about this case. He is not deployable for his own safety..not because he has a psych or physical issue. FTR, lots of people are not deployable...and don't get discharged.

FYI - transgender is not same as Gay - grow up do some research and learn the difference. I didn't say he was transgender, I said he was a TRANSVESTITE. He is gay and likes to wear womens clothing.

Quoting yourspecialkid:

My dh has a friend who is a base commander. He has a gay transvestite in his wing. The guy wanted to wear female uniforms, was denied..then threatened to sue. They just gave in to avoid the publicity. The guy is no longer deployable. IMO, if you aren't deployable..unless it is for a short term thing..you should be discharged.

We knew there would be lots of issues. No one was listening to those trying to resolve them before the repeal.

"Service members engaged in homosexual behavior protested a service schoolâs open-door policy for all students that prohibited the closing of room doors for the purpose of hiding sexual behavior. The protesters claimed that they had a right to participate in sexual behavior with their same-sex roommates."

HaHaHaHa! Someone forgot to tell this dude that you have NO rights once you sign on that dotted line. You are officially property, not a person. And for that matter, noone has any rights to have sex in a military dorm room. This rule applies to all across the board except MARRIED soldiers.

Send me email updates about messages I've received on the site and the latest news from The CafeMom Team.
By signing up, you certify that you are female and accept the Terms of Service and have read the
Privacy Policy.